GNU bug report logs - #24510
25.1; Info: searching for ` does not find what looks like `

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 24510 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24510: 25.1; Info: searching for ` does not find what looks like `
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 20:08:44 +0300

> Cc: 24510 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:30:07 -0400
> 
> I'm not sure it makes sense to equate "better" and "worse" with more or less coverage.   Is Consolas worse than Courier New in terms of number of characters supported?  Certainly.  But then why is Emacs not defaulting to MingLiu or NSimSun?  They are both monospace, both available in recent releases of Microsoft Windows, and they both cover multiple East-Asian scripts, (Courier New doesn't).  On my system, MingLiu supports 28955 glyphs; over 23 times as many as Courier New.

Not just the number of characters matters: the number of Unicode
blocks also matters, maybe even more.  Each block is some script, so
supporting less blocks means less scripts supported by the default
font.  Emacs will have then look for a different font, which makes
less pleasant display, creates text alignment problems, etc.

> Do we have evidence that users of Emacs on Windows write significant amounts of code in Arabic, to the point that we would want to use Courier New as the default, instead of as a fallback?  If so, do we have evidence that more code is written in Emacs in Arabic than in Chinese and Japanese?  And finally, do we have evidence that users of scripts that Consolas does not support prefer having Courier New as the default, rather than Consolas with a fallback to Courier New, or MingLiu?

I'm not sure I understand where these questions go.  We don't have
evidence either way, so the issues you raise cannot help us make the
decision.

I personally consider Consolas worse than Courier New, because
Consolas's coverage is clearly biased towards European scripts.  Also,
Emacs has used Courier New for a couple of decades, so changing that
would need a good reason, not some vague doubts that we cannot resolve
based on data.

> I'm not too familiar with editors on Windows.  Do many of them default to Courier New?  AFAICT Netbeans apparently does, but Atom doesn't (it uses Consolas), Visual Studio doesn't (it uses Consolas), Sublime Text doesn't (it uses Consolas), Eclipse doesn't (it changed from Courier New to Consolas in 2011), and Notepad++ doesn't (it changed from Courier New to Source Code Pro in 2015).  What makes things that are acceptable for so many other editors non-starters for us?

One reason is that Emacs has a wider range of different applications,
where being able to support as many languages and scripts as possible
is more important than in Studio or even Vim.  E.g., at least some of
the editors you mention are never used as email/news clients or Web
browsers, where the ability to support as many scripts as possible is
important.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.